<< If I read Greg correctly, he says that to say "the Word was with God, and
the Word was God" is bad grammar, because the Word can't be the God he was
with.

Here is a parallel from the Garden of Eden.

In Genesis 5:1-2 we read:
This is the written account of Adam's line. When God created man, he made
him in the likeness of God.
2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were
created, he called them "man". >>

No, I am not basing my opinion on what might perceived as "bad grammar," but
on what would seem to be an impossible situation. If the two QEOI are "with"
each other, then they, under any normal reading of the text, are not the same
QEOS. Other terms could easily have been used, but were not.

However, your parallel does not fit at all. It is first of all an incomplete
translation of the Hebrew of Genesis 5:2. The Hebrew says: "He called THEIR
NAME man/Adam." Now, since it is clear that EACH of the TWO instances of
"man" (Adam and Eve) had this "name," how is it that you find to be support
for your view of John 1:1? No one doubts that the same "name" or title is
used for both the LOGOS and the God he is with (namely, QEOS), but we are
suggesting that since they are "with" each other then, as with Adam and Eve,
they are not the same QEOS just as Adam and Eve were not the same ADAM!

Dave, your post seems heavily charged with theology, as even you seem to
admit. I respect your views, but I cannot allow any flirting with theology to
bring ruin to other productive grammatical threads. Therefore, I will ignore
the remainder of your email and ask for you to 1) deal with the grammar of
the alleged parallel you provided, or 2) explain how your "parallel" is in
any way grammatically supportive of your position.